wtfNeedSignUp
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
I thought that they reversed it otherwise they wouldn't show the new season. Never doubt the ability of corporations to make themselves look worse than just doing nothing.
Clarkson's Farm - Amazon Prime series about the most inept farmer... in the world
- Thread starter Pee Cola
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2017
They haven't cancelled shit, it's just a rumour based on a single anonymous source that got reported everywhere as fact to try and force Amazon into actually doing it.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2020
typical of some ratty little shit to try and cancel Jeremy for no real reason. must be low-T or jealousy.
- Joined
- May 19, 2018
Just watched the first few episodes. Never thought I'd feel sorry for Clarkson, but farming in Bongland is a job for Franz Kafka protagonists.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2020
When I lived in a rural area a few years ago I knew a few farmers. None of them ever had anything nice to say about the EU. Much like the Fishermen, the EU would demand a whole bunch of stuff and bully farmers into meeting quotas. I can't stress for the Americans how fustrating it is to have an alliance of other countries dictate to UK farmers what is allowed and not allowed on a UK farm located in the UK. Let alone our seas. Especially knowing many of those laws were designed on purpose to disadvantage the UK farmers over European ones who could make cheaper produce. Ironically considering Clarkson is staunchly remain, this whole series is eye opening for just how much the EU and wealthy oligarchs screwed the UK farming industry in the name of globalism.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
it's a (scripted) reality docu, not a frigging movie set. and you don't even need to lug big-ass cameras around anymore, you can do that on a gopro these days.
Morethanabitfoolish
Sick of politics, time to join the anime posters.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2021
Where am I talking about movie sets? Clarkson's show is attracting tourists, as I mentioned when I pointed out the queue for the farm shop. The crew such as they are are fairly minimal disruption. It's the assorted rubber neckers there for the farm shop and the restaurant that'll be causing traffic.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
rubber neckers you can tell to fuck off, especially if it's private property. increased traffic can be an issue, but that's responsibility of the business.
besides, it's a rural road, it's much more likely anyone else has to wait for a tractor and animals to move around than vice versa.
wtfNeedSignUp
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Don't forget fucking caravans.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2020
Funnily enough, that will be the least amount of traffic the road sees. Most Caravan Parks in the UK tend to be filled with people who take a 'set-up and forget' approach to holiday-making, even in the summer.
Most of the traffic will actually be from farm vehicles moving around, as well as queues for the farm shop and restaurant, but now that the rotating car park system is in place and the council can't legally do anything about it, this will mean that extensive traffic flow can be kept under control.
the media vultures are still trying to drum up as much drama as possible about this farm, though. talking with my mom the other day made it painfully apparent that they've just been shitting on the farm non-stop and only addressing points that the council is worried about while ignoring literally everything else. par for the course as the media is just the propaganda arm of the state in this country.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
The way the council behaved toward Clarkson has me seriously pissed off. They mouth off about wanting to invest in the rural community and help farmers, but the moment any farmer tries to actually improve their lot, the local gov just sprays shit on them until they drop dead. Every layer of government on this country is filled with the same arrogant, conceited, city-bred faggots and they all hate the people who feed them.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2021
The funniest part of that is how the one council member you least expect to be on Clarkson's side was on his side. This person was that more relatively youngish woman in red with the wrist tattoo. All the other old farts were too busy licking each others buttholes.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
Yeah, you could tell she was a bit surprised at the position she was in, too. She's obviously connected to someone who actually works the land, or was raised in a more rural area. The others are all probably from Oxford or one of the other large towns in the county and might as well be from London, for all they know about the place.
Daft this is, they put out a statement the other week about how they didn't treat Clarkson any different to any other farmer. They thought that would make them look good!
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
Seems Clarkson has bought a herd of pigs. I wonder if we'll hear about a string of mysterious disappearances of planning department officials.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2020
and then they wonder why farmers don't tend to like local councillors.
Milkshake Sniffer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2020
Matters advanced (a lot) since the events shown at the end of series 2.
On Tuesday 14 March an informal hearing is due to start at the West Oxon DC offices into two appeals that Clarkson has made. One is against an enforcement notice issued by WODC against the farm shop and restaurant. The other is against WODC refusing to permit parking/access/storage proposals. Decisions on the appeals will NOT be made on the day though usually the planning inspector conducting the hearing will give an indication of when the decisions can be expected by. I've not see anything to suggest that the hearing will extend beyond that Tuesday. Attached is the notification (which has website details for anyone who really wants to delve - both the WODC and PINS (Planning Inspectorate) appear to be missing documents). Also attached are some of the more important documents should anyone have trouble sleeping.
For those lucky enough not to have an anal understanding of the Britbong planning system:
Planning permission is required to develop land. Development is executing physical works on land (operational development) or making a material change in the use of land (usually changing the external impacts of the land use). Lots of uses of land are grouped together into what are known as use classes and as long as the before use and after use are in the same use class the change is deemed not to be development. That's why locals will have seem commercial agents' boards advertising properties for B1, A1, A2, A3 or similar. Those are all use classes. There's also a general automatic grant of permission called the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) which grants permission (usually subject to conditions and limitations) for a wide range of types of development that the Government has decided shouldn't require a specific application for permission. (This was supposed to be a simple document that the ordinary person could read and understand what they could and couldn't do but that was the 1950s. Attached is the current version - good luck ordinary person.)
Developing without permission is not a criminal offence (usually). It's a breach of planning control (as is not complying with a condition on a permission) which can be enforced against for either 4 or 10 years depending on what type of breach it is. The usual method of enforcement is a notice called (imaginatively) an enforcement notice. That's what's happened here. Non compliance with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence. Injunctions can be sought but that's rare. There's a right of appeal against an enforcement notice and the notice doesn't take effect until final determination of the appeal. Notices are not supposed to be issued just because there's a breach of planing control. The breach should be objectionable in the sense that it should not be granted planning permission. The very first of the available grounds of appeal is that planning permission should be granted. Appeals can be determined by written representations, informal hearing and local public inquiry (LPI). Written reps is in essence a glorified exchange of correspondence. Informal hearing is where an inspector holds a hearing in the locality with the inspector leading a discussion on what he considers the issues to be. Lawyers aren't forbidden but shouldn't be "necessary". LPIs are the full monty procedure with openings, evidence in chief, cross examination, re examination and closings. Lawyers aren't mandatory but are disturbingly prominent. They can last less than a day or more than many months. An LPI was what was being discussed in the series though that cost estimate of £500k for a two to three week LPI was ridiculous. The inspector deciding the appeal (whatever the procedure) can decide that one party should pay the costs of another. There's no rule that that the loser pays the winner and it relies on showing "unreasonable behaviour" on the part of whoever's at the wrong end of the costs decision. Unreasonable behaviour invariably means behaviour falling within various examples set out in a Government policy document issued for the purpose. It can be f'ing up procedurally or substantively with substantive unreasonable behaviour usually being not following Government policy. Costs in planning appeals used to be very rare but that's no longer the case. You can't expect costs recovery and even if you get it, don't expect to recover all your costs.
Although the vast majority of planning decisions are made by local councils they are subject to appeal to the Government (Planning Inspectorate) and even the decisions made by local councils are hugely affected by Government policy which is vast. This is enforced by the Planning Inspectorate applying Government policy on appeals and screwing councils financially via costs decisions or grants being reduced removed if, for example, too high a proportion of their appeals go against them. These are real controls over local councils. There are applications that local councils can't determine without telling the Government first and a period of time expires. That ties in with the Government having to power to "call in" any application for planning permission for determination by the Government directly. The other major control is the "development plan". Applications have to be determined "in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise" so it's a starting point but a very strong starting point. Although a council's development plan is produced by the council itself it can't come into effect unless it's been signed off by a Government appointed inspector and it won't be signed off unless it's consistent with Government policy. Local Council's do have leeway to fuck around but it's limited to what Government tolerates and the kicking that Government can inflict can't be understated. Don't ever think the planning system is bottom up. It just looks that way!
How are Clarkson's appeals going to end up? No idea. Not going to dispute that WODC are retarded NIMBY incompetents but....... the presentation of the show is limited (fair enough, it has to be) but even what's been shown raises some red flags such as:
The shock and horror about the farm track refusal was presented as WODC refusing it as unacceptable as a matter of discretion. From what we were told in the show that was a notification; i.e. a GPDO notification under Part 6 Class A (p90 et seq). Condition A2 (pp91-92) requires the prior notification where the works consist of the alteration of a private way which this is. We were told that the Council "refused" because the track wasn't reasonably required for the purposes of agriculture. That seems fair enough given that the whole purpose of the works was to provide access to the restaurant. The problem for Clarkson is that the Part 6 Class A rights are limited to "which are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit" (p90). WODC didn't refuse permission as a matter of discretion; they told Clarkson that the Part 6 rights he was relying on didn't apply. And they were right.
The existing agi building to restaurant notification is relying on Class R of the GPDO (sale of foot and drink for consumption mostly on the premises is in class E). This is on p62 et seq of the attached pdf. The problem is that there are conditions inc R3 (pp63/64 - there's a typo) which requires the prior notification and applies para W (pp68-70). That requires the council to be given 56 days notice. The wizard wheeze shown in the show was giving notice at close of business Friday, doing the works over the weekend to open at the start of the week. It may be that the show took "artistic licence" for dramatic reasons but what was presented was bollocks. I also don't believe the story of the builder coming up with this at the eleventh hour. Clarkson's consultancy, JPPC, isn't what you'd call a major national planning consultancy but it's a large and well respected operator in Oxfordshire and beyond. It's not credible that they would not have known about Class R of the GPDO. Also; out of hours building operations to present WODC with a fait accompli is retarded. That's the sort of thing that will end up with an injunction preventing the use almost immediately. There are situations where out of hours works and the fait accompli can work (gypsies starting living on agi land over a bank holiday weekend is a classic) but this ain't one of them.
More generally Clarkson's EU/Brexit positions are borderline surreal. It might be fair comment to say that pre Brexit, farmers knew what subsidies they would get and post Brexit, the UK Govt has been completely incompetent on that but that's about as far as it can go. The vast majority of restrictions and controls that farmers are subject to derive from the EU. Even on the financials the UK always paid more into the EU than it got out so the specific criticism can't be more than UK Gov't incompetence which it is but so is the EU.
I don't mention these to suggest that all of Clarkson's proposals should be permitted; just that the show's presentation raises some issue as to how honest it has been.
On Tuesday 14 March an informal hearing is due to start at the West Oxon DC offices into two appeals that Clarkson has made. One is against an enforcement notice issued by WODC against the farm shop and restaurant. The other is against WODC refusing to permit parking/access/storage proposals. Decisions on the appeals will NOT be made on the day though usually the planning inspector conducting the hearing will give an indication of when the decisions can be expected by. I've not see anything to suggest that the hearing will extend beyond that Tuesday. Attached is the notification (which has website details for anyone who really wants to delve - both the WODC and PINS (Planning Inspectorate) appear to be missing documents). Also attached are some of the more important documents should anyone have trouble sleeping.
For those lucky enough not to have an anal understanding of the Britbong planning system:
Planning permission is required to develop land. Development is executing physical works on land (operational development) or making a material change in the use of land (usually changing the external impacts of the land use). Lots of uses of land are grouped together into what are known as use classes and as long as the before use and after use are in the same use class the change is deemed not to be development. That's why locals will have seem commercial agents' boards advertising properties for B1, A1, A2, A3 or similar. Those are all use classes. There's also a general automatic grant of permission called the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) which grants permission (usually subject to conditions and limitations) for a wide range of types of development that the Government has decided shouldn't require a specific application for permission. (This was supposed to be a simple document that the ordinary person could read and understand what they could and couldn't do but that was the 1950s. Attached is the current version - good luck ordinary person.)
Developing without permission is not a criminal offence (usually). It's a breach of planning control (as is not complying with a condition on a permission) which can be enforced against for either 4 or 10 years depending on what type of breach it is. The usual method of enforcement is a notice called (imaginatively) an enforcement notice. That's what's happened here. Non compliance with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence. Injunctions can be sought but that's rare. There's a right of appeal against an enforcement notice and the notice doesn't take effect until final determination of the appeal. Notices are not supposed to be issued just because there's a breach of planing control. The breach should be objectionable in the sense that it should not be granted planning permission. The very first of the available grounds of appeal is that planning permission should be granted. Appeals can be determined by written representations, informal hearing and local public inquiry (LPI). Written reps is in essence a glorified exchange of correspondence. Informal hearing is where an inspector holds a hearing in the locality with the inspector leading a discussion on what he considers the issues to be. Lawyers aren't forbidden but shouldn't be "necessary". LPIs are the full monty procedure with openings, evidence in chief, cross examination, re examination and closings. Lawyers aren't mandatory but are disturbingly prominent. They can last less than a day or more than many months. An LPI was what was being discussed in the series though that cost estimate of £500k for a two to three week LPI was ridiculous. The inspector deciding the appeal (whatever the procedure) can decide that one party should pay the costs of another. There's no rule that that the loser pays the winner and it relies on showing "unreasonable behaviour" on the part of whoever's at the wrong end of the costs decision. Unreasonable behaviour invariably means behaviour falling within various examples set out in a Government policy document issued for the purpose. It can be f'ing up procedurally or substantively with substantive unreasonable behaviour usually being not following Government policy. Costs in planning appeals used to be very rare but that's no longer the case. You can't expect costs recovery and even if you get it, don't expect to recover all your costs.
Although the vast majority of planning decisions are made by local councils they are subject to appeal to the Government (Planning Inspectorate) and even the decisions made by local councils are hugely affected by Government policy which is vast. This is enforced by the Planning Inspectorate applying Government policy on appeals and screwing councils financially via costs decisions or grants being reduced removed if, for example, too high a proportion of their appeals go against them. These are real controls over local councils. There are applications that local councils can't determine without telling the Government first and a period of time expires. That ties in with the Government having to power to "call in" any application for planning permission for determination by the Government directly. The other major control is the "development plan". Applications have to be determined "in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise" so it's a starting point but a very strong starting point. Although a council's development plan is produced by the council itself it can't come into effect unless it's been signed off by a Government appointed inspector and it won't be signed off unless it's consistent with Government policy. Local Council's do have leeway to fuck around but it's limited to what Government tolerates and the kicking that Government can inflict can't be understated. Don't ever think the planning system is bottom up. It just looks that way!
How are Clarkson's appeals going to end up? No idea. Not going to dispute that WODC are retarded NIMBY incompetents but....... the presentation of the show is limited (fair enough, it has to be) but even what's been shown raises some red flags such as:
The shock and horror about the farm track refusal was presented as WODC refusing it as unacceptable as a matter of discretion. From what we were told in the show that was a notification; i.e. a GPDO notification under Part 6 Class A (p90 et seq). Condition A2 (pp91-92) requires the prior notification where the works consist of the alteration of a private way which this is. We were told that the Council "refused" because the track wasn't reasonably required for the purposes of agriculture. That seems fair enough given that the whole purpose of the works was to provide access to the restaurant. The problem for Clarkson is that the Part 6 Class A rights are limited to "which are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit" (p90). WODC didn't refuse permission as a matter of discretion; they told Clarkson that the Part 6 rights he was relying on didn't apply. And they were right.
The existing agi building to restaurant notification is relying on Class R of the GPDO (sale of foot and drink for consumption mostly on the premises is in class E). This is on p62 et seq of the attached pdf. The problem is that there are conditions inc R3 (pp63/64 - there's a typo) which requires the prior notification and applies para W (pp68-70). That requires the council to be given 56 days notice. The wizard wheeze shown in the show was giving notice at close of business Friday, doing the works over the weekend to open at the start of the week. It may be that the show took "artistic licence" for dramatic reasons but what was presented was bollocks. I also don't believe the story of the builder coming up with this at the eleventh hour. Clarkson's consultancy, JPPC, isn't what you'd call a major national planning consultancy but it's a large and well respected operator in Oxfordshire and beyond. It's not credible that they would not have known about Class R of the GPDO. Also; out of hours building operations to present WODC with a fait accompli is retarded. That's the sort of thing that will end up with an injunction preventing the use almost immediately. There are situations where out of hours works and the fait accompli can work (gypsies starting living on agi land over a bank holiday weekend is a classic) but this ain't one of them.
More generally Clarkson's EU/Brexit positions are borderline surreal. It might be fair comment to say that pre Brexit, farmers knew what subsidies they would get and post Brexit, the UK Govt has been completely incompetent on that but that's about as far as it can go. The vast majority of restrictions and controls that farmers are subject to derive from the EU. Even on the financials the UK always paid more into the EU than it got out so the specific criticism can't be more than UK Gov't incompetence which it is but so is the EU.
I don't mention these to suggest that all of Clarkson's proposals should be permitted; just that the show's presentation raises some issue as to how honest it has been.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2020
@Milkshake Sniffer I can't quote post you so you'll have to make do with this (you).
Solid explanation of the beuraucratic hellscape that is planning permission in the UK. the bit I've always been able to stomach the least is the notion that UK farms were somehow better off for being in the EU when we've already seen what EU policy has done to farmers in France and the Netherlands.
While you're right about the arguments regarding the Part 6 Class A Rights, I'd take the line that this specific line is deliberately vague enough that it gives the council reason to handwave away things they don't like and let through things they do like, as the line implies that 'as long as you can justify what you're doing is reasonably necessary to ensure that agriculture can continue at this spot (ie, diversifying your business in the absence of grants and subsidies from the state) then there shouldn't be any reason to prevent the action being taken.'
There's just as much a point that the works being done would ensure that the farm would continue to thrive were it able to expand its business potential, much in the same way that Daylesford was allowed to expand. Granted, these are two different district councils, but it provides an extremely good illustration of the priorities of each council and how vague enough terms can be used as a form of selective gatekeeping by people with a bad attitude.
Obviously it gets more complex when you start factoring in heritage areas and ensuring that a building matches the aesthetics of the area that it is being built in among other things, but that's something that you can very easily discuss with person who wants to make any changes to their property so that you can come to some kind of a resolution, the problem is that it entirely depends on whether or not the case worker or workers can be bothered to have that discussion with the person who wants to make the change or not, and from my experience the vast majority of people just want to do things EXACTLY as it says in their procedure in to avoid legal trouble from wankers with too much time on their hands who like to complain about everyone and everything and avoid having any more discussion than is necessary because 10 more of these exact same wankers have blocked up the work queue and they start shouting if their queries don't get looked at within the hour.
In the end it all seems to come back to the lowest common denominator, this being the people who complain to local councils, with the council being complicit due to not wanting to deal with complaints from that one nutter who's only satisfaction in life is moaning about his neighbours and maybe going on walks at 10PM (but only if he doesn't have to see or hear any messy farm equipment ruining his dark skies at night. god forbid that country folk actually have livelihoods and try to maintain them).
Solid explanation of the beuraucratic hellscape that is planning permission in the UK. the bit I've always been able to stomach the least is the notion that UK farms were somehow better off for being in the EU when we've already seen what EU policy has done to farmers in France and the Netherlands.
While you're right about the arguments regarding the Part 6 Class A Rights, I'd take the line that this specific line is deliberately vague enough that it gives the council reason to handwave away things they don't like and let through things they do like, as the line implies that 'as long as you can justify what you're doing is reasonably necessary to ensure that agriculture can continue at this spot (ie, diversifying your business in the absence of grants and subsidies from the state) then there shouldn't be any reason to prevent the action being taken.'
There's just as much a point that the works being done would ensure that the farm would continue to thrive were it able to expand its business potential, much in the same way that Daylesford was allowed to expand. Granted, these are two different district councils, but it provides an extremely good illustration of the priorities of each council and how vague enough terms can be used as a form of selective gatekeeping by people with a bad attitude.
Obviously it gets more complex when you start factoring in heritage areas and ensuring that a building matches the aesthetics of the area that it is being built in among other things, but that's something that you can very easily discuss with person who wants to make any changes to their property so that you can come to some kind of a resolution, the problem is that it entirely depends on whether or not the case worker or workers can be bothered to have that discussion with the person who wants to make the change or not, and from my experience the vast majority of people just want to do things EXACTLY as it says in their procedure in to avoid legal trouble from wankers with too much time on their hands who like to complain about everyone and everything and avoid having any more discussion than is necessary because 10 more of these exact same wankers have blocked up the work queue and they start shouting if their queries don't get looked at within the hour.
In the end it all seems to come back to the lowest common denominator, this being the people who complain to local councils, with the council being complicit due to not wanting to deal with complaints from that one nutter who's only satisfaction in life is moaning about his neighbours and maybe going on walks at 10PM (but only if he doesn't have to see or hear any messy farm equipment ruining his dark skies at night. god forbid that country folk actually have livelihoods and try to maintain them).
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 19, 2018
@Milkshake Sniffer , @Str8Bustah , I used to work in procurement for the US military and reading your posts made me feel like I was having a fucking stroke, great job making the experience accessible.
I'm slow rolling the show (it's too good to binge) and I'm kinda hoping for a dramatic reaction to February 24th. Given how the lead-up to the Ukraine war already put the screws to UK farmers, season 3 is gonna be lit (or, well, not lit because power costs too much.)
I'm slow rolling the show (it's too good to binge) and I'm kinda hoping for a dramatic reaction to February 24th. Given how the lead-up to the Ukraine war already put the screws to UK farmers, season 3 is gonna be lit (or, well, not lit because power costs too much.)
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
I relly wonder how much of this show is real, and how much is manufactured for the cameras. Can never be sure with reality TV. I figure it's a bit of both here.